There was an Egyptian prophet at the Mount of Olives when Antonius Felix was procurator of Judea (52-60 C.E.). This account appears in Josephus after the death of Emperor Claudius succeeded by Nero (54 C.E.).
In 57 C.E., at Jerusalem, Paul gets arrested in the Temple and causes a mob (Acts 21: 26-36). He addresses that mob (Acts 21:37 – 22:21). See: ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
When [Paul] reached the steps, he was carried by the soldiers because of the violence
of the mob,
for a crowd of people followed and shouted,
“Away with him!”
Just as Paul was about to be taken into the compound, he said to the cohort commander,
“May I say something to you?” He replied “Do you speak Greek?
So, then, you are not the Egyptian who started a revolt some time ago and led the four thousand assains into the dessert?”
Acts 21: 35-38
In 57 C.E., the Roman cohort commander had reason to remember/identify/mistake Paul as someone from no earlier than three years prior (54 C.E.), the Egyptian Prophet who had gathered people at the Mount of Olives.
Without there being an historical Jesus crucified by Pontius Pilate, there likely was not a Jesus of the late 20’s C.E. who habitually visited the Mount of Olives, leaving the Egyptian Prophet or Paul as the historical personage, circa 54 C.E., associated with the Mount of Olives.
The Garden of Gethsemane is located just east of Jerusalem, across the Kidron Valley, at the foot of Mount of Olives. The name of the garden, “Gethsemane,” is derived from the Hebrew words “gat,” which means “a place for pressing,” and “shemanim,” which means “oils.”
= = =
The proposition is that without a Jesus Christ of the late 20’s CE, Paul, Egyptian Prophet is the Jesus Christ who was captured at the Mount of Olives after praying and agonizing in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Paul, Egyptian Prophet was betrayed as Jesus was betrayed because Felix had advance notice of his intent to storm Jerusalem.
Moreover, there came out of Egypt about this time to Jerusalem one that said he was a prophet, and advised the multitude of the common people to go along with him to the Mount of Olives … which lay over against the city, and at the distance of five furlongs [five eights of a mile].
He said farther, that he would show them from hence, how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down; and he promised that he would procure them an entrance into the city through those walls when they had fallen.
Now, when Felix was informed of these things, he ordered his soldiers to take their weapons and came against them with a great number of horsemen and footmen from Jerusalem and attacked the Egyptian and the people that were with him. He also slew four hundred of them and took two hundred alive.
But the Egyptian himself escaped out of the fight, but he did not appear any more. And again, the robbers stirred up the people to make war with the Romans, and said they ought not to obey them at all; and when any persons would not comply with them, they set fire to their villages, and plundered them.
Josephus translated by William Whiston, The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20. Chapter 8, Section 6,
Lines 169-172, p. 536.
Debate Judge
So you are saying historical appearances at the Garden of Gethsemane, Mount of Olives are with the Egyptian Prophet.
Steefen
Yes. Jesus did not make popular, in history, that place: the Egyptian Prophet did.
Next, we are saying, in 57 C.E., the Roman cohort commander had reason to remember / identify Paul as the Egyptian Prophet who had a base at the Mount of Olives.
Just as in the gospels, Mark Chapter 14, verse 48
Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest Me as you would an outlaw? Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest Me.
Just as in the gospels, armed men came for Jesus. But, being specific, it was not armed Roman soldiers who arrested Jesus, Romans were added security for the Temple guards who arrested him.
Debate Judge
So, Paul annoyed the Temple Establishment as the Egyptian Prophet?
Steefen
Paul as the historical Egyptian Prophet with a “Jesus” theology had a following at the Mount of Olives.
Steefen
Jesus is a Jewish version of Paul who frequented the Mount of Olives as the Egyptian Prophet.
Paul converts from Judaism to a larger audience within the Roman Empire. He makes a Jewish version of himself because he was an observant Jew first. He just rewrites his autobiography. This is why Jesus speaks of God as his father and Paul does not. Being outside of Temple Judaism with a message to the Gentiles (to whom he converts), God is not the father of the Gentiles.
It has been established that the only Redeemer killed under Pontius Pilate was the Samaritan Redeemer; therefore, Jesus is a literary creation but also a backdated Jewish version of a converted Paul.
Question to Dr. Ehrman
Jesus is a Jewish version of Paul.
This is why Jesus speaks of God as his father and Paul does not. (I am referencing the the Jesus-Paul debate circa the beginning of the 20th century.) God the Father has to refer to the God of the Torah or the Septuagint at-large. God is the Father of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not the descendant of those outside those three patriarchs.
Question:
I do not recall you doing a post on the Jesus-Paul debate which compares the Christology of Jesus to the Christology of Paul–how much content DID that vision on the way to Damascus inform Paul.
Other than Paul being weak about God the Father, is there anything else Paul does not pick up from Jesus?
Steefen
The article goes on to say Scott challenges Wede:
There is indeed, he insists, substantial agreement between the two on such key issues as the Fatherhood of God and ethics.
Let’s see what fatherhood is in a Pauline letter:
For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth—as there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him” (1 Corinthians 8:4-6).
Steefen
This does not rise the level of Jesus’ presentation of God the Father. Jesus speaks of God the Father while speaking of himself as the Son. Here Paul speaks of God, the Father without Jesus being the Son but with Jesus being a Lord.
Let’s look at another example of Paul speaking about God the Father in a way that is not even in the same ballpark as gospel teaching.
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every. (Ephesians 1:3)
This does not convey the Abba closeness of Jesus to the Father. This is not the Father-Son relationship. This is a cold, formal, generic Father of all creation designation. This does not rise the occasion.
Mark 14th Chapter
“Are You … the Son of the Blessed One?
62“I am,” said Jesus, “and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
Steefen
Paul does NOT reference Jesus before the high priest and does not reference the Father’s reaction to Jesus’ baptism.
Where does Paul reference the Parable of the Wicked Tenants where the son is killed–not all human beings are my son, but MY son was killed by wicked tenants?
There is a distinct difference between the way the gospels and the Jesus of the gospels use Father and the way Paul uses Father.
1 Cor Chapter 9
To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews.
To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), to win those under the law.
21To those without the law I became like one without the law (though I am not outside the law of God but I am under the law of Christ), to win those without the law.…
Steefen
And what does the Torah and the Hebrew Bible at-large say about the “law of Christ/Messiah”?
There is no law of Christ/Messiah incumbent on believers in the Torah and the Hebrew Bible.
Jesus did not speak of the “law of Christ/Messiah”: this is something Paul made up.
Also, you need a Christ/Messiah that checks all the boxes. Jesus did not check all the boxes.
Paul admits right there in 1 Cor that he is not a Jew in good standing: Paul admits he is not under the law. He is under the law of Christ/Messiah, a term HE made up. In the Hebrew Bible, compare and contrast the covenant in the Torah with Messianic Law as it specifically relates to Jesus.
One could say there was a Messianic Promise. One cannot say there is a Messianic Law.
Let Paul baffle you with his nonsense about Judaism. Paul is talking to Corinthians who are entertaining his nonsense. Did Jews in Jerusalem agree with his Christology/Messiah Concept? No.
Bart Ehrman
But my thesis/view is that calling Jesus in particular the messiah was altogether unacceptable … offensive and scandalous.
Probably the best known and most attested view is that the messiah would be a great military and political leader like the greatest king in the history of ancient Israel, David. To explain this expectation, I need to provide a bit of background. The word “messiah” comes from a Hebrew word that means “anointed one.” It refers to someone who has had oil poured on his head as a sign of special favor. This is the term that was used of the ancient kings of Israel.
Starting with the first king Saul, and then David who succeeded him, the sign that a man was chosen by God to be king was that a prophet (Samuel, e.g.) would pour scented oil on his head. And so, e.g., the scene in 1 Samuel 10: the prophet Samuel takes of vial of oil, pours it on Saul’s head, and says “The LORD has anointed you ruler over his people Israel.” Similar thing with David (see ** you do not have permission to see this link **).
The king came to be known as “the anointed one” (literally “the messiah”). You find this for example in the Psalms “The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and his anointed” (** you do not have permission to see this link **).
So how did the idea that the king was anointed lead to the idea that there would be a future messiah? It all goes back to a prediction given to king David, that he would always, for ever and ever, have a descendant sitting on the throne of Judea (** you do not have permission to see this link **). That prediction held good for some four hundred years. The Judean kings from Solomon to the last king Zedekiah (2 Kings 25) were all descendants of David.
Zedekiah, though, was the last. In 586 BCE the Babylonians, under their powerful general and king Nebuchadnezzar, came into Judea, laid it waste, destroyed Jerusalem, and burned the temple. The king was led off in chains. And there was no more Davidic king on the throne.
But God had promised that there always would be a king on the throne. Had God rescinded on a promise? Did he not know the kingdom would last? How could the word of God be matched with the realities of history?
Some Jewish thinkers believed that God would indeed fulfil his promises. He would in the future restore the kingdom. There would be a future king on the throne, a future descendant of David, a future anointed one – the messiah to come. That was probably the original messianic expectation and probably also the dominant one in Jesus’ and Paul’s day.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
For at least a thousand years, Hebrew Scripture said, I am your God and you are my people. Now because PAUL was a runaway from Judaism, Paul has the authority to speak for Jewish culture, and after all of the destruction of humankind during the time of Noah, all the wars in the conquest of Canaan, after not calling the Babylonians his children, after not calling Athenians his children, after not calling Alexander the Great his child (didn’t the book of Daniel call Gentile powers beasts?), after not call the Roman Republic and its citizens his children, now Paul is saying the Jewish notion of God fathered these other world citizens? They did not know about it, but because Paul is claiming the Brooklyn Bridge, that is supposed to carry weight?
THAT is false.
Galatians Chapter 2
know that a man is not justified by works of the law but by faith in Jesus Messiah/Christ.
…by works of the law no one will be justified.
Steefen
Spoken by a person NOT in good standing with authentic Judaism. A person cannot be an authentic Jew saying that and saying literally and/or metaphorically eat Jesus’ body and drink Jesus’ blood. CASE CLOSED: Paul’s Christology disqualified him from being an authentic observant Jew.
Mechon Mamre, or “The Mamre Institute,” makes available and searchable online a variety of classic Jewish texts in Hebrew, Aramaic, and in translation. Among these texts are the Hebrew Bible, Maimonides’ Mishne torah, the Mishnah and the Talmud.
Mechon Mamre The Mamre Institute:
The Mashiach: The Messiah
The mashiach will be a great political leader descended by a pure male line from King David (Jeremiah 23,5). The mashiach is often referred to as “mashiach ben David” (The Mashiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11,2-5). He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military figure who will win battles for Israel, freeing the Jews of foreign domination and establishing a Torah-based kingdom in Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33,15). But above all, he will be a fully normal human being, not a god, demi-god, or other supernatural being.
Jews know that Jesus could not possibly have been the mashiach. Assuming that he existed, and assuming that the Christian scriptures are accurate in describing him (both of which are debatable), he simply did not fulfill the mission of the mashiach as Jews have always understood it. Jesus .. did not bring about the anticipated messianic age.
On the contrary, another Jew born about a century later came far closer to fulfilling the messianic ideal than Jesus did. His name was Shimeon ben Kosiba, known as Bar Kochba (son of a star), and he was a charismatic, brilliant, and harsh military figure. Among others, Rabbi Akiba, one of the greatest scholars in Jewish history, believed that Bar Kochba was the mashiach. Bar Kochba fought a war against the Roman Empire, catching the Tenth Legion by surprise and retaking Jerusalem. He resumed sacrifices at the site of the Temple and made plans to rebuild the Temple. He established a provisional government and began to issue coins in its name. This is what the Jewish people were looking for in a mashiach; Jesus clearly does not fit into this mold, of course. Ultimately, however, the Roman Empire crushed his revolt and killed Bar Kochba. After his death, all acknowledged that he was not the mashiach (as Jesus’ followers should have done with their pretender to be mashiach).
Steefen
Not even a unique, biological person, let alone a unique, biological, historical person is the Jesus of Paul.
Be justified by faith in my make-believe person who is not even the Messiah. Maybe a case could be made if Jesus succeeded in being the Messiah described in the Isaiah and Jeremiah verses above but he did not.
The Hebrew Bible does not say faith in the Messiah is more important justification than the laws and covenants with Abraham, Moses, and David. Paul made all of that up: I had a vision about a make-believe man and the Hebrew scriptures are relegated underneath my vision. No, I was not transfigured with Moses, Elijah, or even Jesus. No, Jesus did not make a prophecy about me. I am just a man off the street. Your whole religion falls down because I press my finger on your wall?
Paul was the Egyptian prophet who made up Jesus.
A Christ figure is an anointed person, a king.
Pharaohs survived death after going through the hours of the amduat.
The Amduat (literally ‘that which is in the netherworld’), also known as the Book of the Hidden Chamber, is a funerary text that describes the journey of regeneration of Re, the Egyptian sun god, through the 12 hours of the night from sunset (symbolising death) to sunrise (symbolising rebirth).
Jesus’ story has this foundation but is altered to fit messianic culture, for example, the Gabriel Revelation says, “after three days, live!”
The dates assigned to the authentic letters of Paul:
1st Thessalonians c. 50 CE
Galatians c. 53
1st Corinthians c. 53-54
Philippians c. 55
Philemon c. 55
2nd Corinthians c. 55-56
Finally, Romans c. 57
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
There was an Egyptian prophet at the Mount of Olives when Antonius Felix was procurator of Judea (52-60 C.E.). This account appears in Josephus after the death of Emperor Claudius succeeded by Nero (54 C.E.).
The Egyptian Prophet is at the Mount of Olives between 54 C.E. and 60 C.E.
In 57 C.E., at Jerusalem, Paul gets arrested in the Temple and causes a mob (Acts 21: 26-36). He addresses that mob (Acts 21:37 – 22:21).
In 57 C.E., the Roman cohort commander had reason to remember/identify/mistake Paul as someone from no earlier than three years prior (54 C.E.), the Egyptian Prophet who had gathered people at the Mount of Olives.
The Egyptian Prophet is at the Mount of Olives between 54 C.E. and 57 C.E.
Only 1st Thessalonians, Galatians, and 1st Corinthians had been written before the Egyptian Prophet could have made a scene at the Mount of Olives.
The death of James the Just, in 62 C.E. (alleged brother of Jesus Christ)
was not mentioned in the Authentic Pauline Letters.
But there were no authentic letters of Paul after 57 C.E. until his death between 64-67 C.E.
Why is that?
Supposedly, he is released from Roman imprisonment in the second half of 62 CE. He does further missionary work
without going back to the Jerusalem Church (to comfort them for the loss of James, the Just).
2. Okay, but in that very verse we read that he “set before them the gospel that [he preached] among the gentiles.” But he hadn’t been on the first missionary journey yet, and so didn’t preach among the gentiles yet; again, this points to a date for this passage after the first missionary journey, and therefore to the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15.
If, therefore, we opt to count the fourteen years from the first Jerusalem visit (as per the Paul’s most straightforward sense in Galatians 1:18, 1:21, and 2:1), then the famine relief visit could be timed as falling during the period in which contemporary extrabiblical sources mention a famine, i.e., the years 45-48. Fourteen years before this period (counted inclusively) puts us in the period 32-35; and if we push back three years earlier (once again, inclusively), that takes us to a date range for Saul’s conversion between 30-33. 30 is almost certainly out of the question, as that, as we’ve seen, is the most probable year of our Lord’s crucifixion, and is therefore too early to consider as a date for Saul’s conversion. We are left, then, with the following possibilities:
A) His conversion in 31; his first Jerusalem visit in 33; and his second Jerusalem visit in 46;
B) His conversion in 32; his first Jerusalem visit in 34; and his second Jerusalem visit in 47;
C) His conversion in 33; his first Jerusalem visit in 35; and his second Jerusalem visit in 48.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Don’t feed the trolls Robert, it just encourages them.
Robert said
I was responding to an earlier version of your post about James or perhaps I misread it. If you believe Paul the Egyptian invented Jesus, how do you account for the existence of James. Do you not think he was Jesus’ brother?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)